Hi, On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:44:43PM +0200, Guy Brooker wrote: > >> sane-find-scanner does not work, as it hard codes device names for each > >> platform. Just use scanimage -L > > > > Someone could add support to sane-find-scanner to use the MacOS API > > :-) For libusb, there are already special functions. > > > > Sure, as long as it is OK to call sanei_scsi_find_devices from > sane-find-scanner.
I think it is ok to do that. > I had looked at the code of sane-find-scanner, and was surprised to see that > instead of calling sanei_scsi_find_devices like the frontend/backends, it > seems to have hardcoded device names in /dev that it tries one after the > other for specific platforms. I assumed this was to provide an alternative > method for looking for devices than scanimage -L. I'm not sure if this is really the reason. My guess is that in the early SANE releases you had to hardcode the device file (e.g. /dev/sg2) or use the /dev/scanner link. Therefore you needed a way to find the scanner's device file. Probably sanei_scsi_find_devices is just newer (and not implemented on every platform). > As there is no equivalent on OS X, I assumed there was no need to add > anything to that command, but it should be straightforward to add a > call to sanei_scsi_find_devices to ensure completeness if you would > like me to. It's not high-priority but I think it may help to locate problems when a scanner is found by the operating system but not by a backend. And it would stop questions from Mac OS X users like "Why is my scanner not found by sane-find-scanner?" > My assumption is that I would call it with no vendor/device lun etc to match > (so it will find all scanner types on all busses) and an attach routine that > just lists the device name, and vendor/model name from the registry, without > calling any of the backends. Does that sound correct/useful ? Yes. Look at sanei_scsi.c itsself, sanei_scsi_find_devices() is called there in a similar way to find out the buffer size. Bye, Henning
